F I L E D
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
JAN 28 1999
TENTH CIRCUIT
__________________________ PATRICK FISHER
Clerk
BRUCE WAYNE MARTIN,
Petitioner-Appellant,
v. No. 98-5113
(N.D. Okla.)
LEROY YOUNG; ATTORNEY GENERAL (D.Ct. No. 96-CV-381-E)
OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA,
Respondents-Appellees.
____________________________
ORDER AND JUDGMENT *
Before BRORBY, EBEL, and LUCERO, Circuit Judges.
After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined
unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist the determination of
this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is
therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.
*
This order and judgment is not binding precedent except under the doctrines of
law of the case, res judicata and collateral estoppel. The court generally disfavors the
citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order and judgment may be cited under
the terms and conditions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3.
Appellant Bruce Wayne Martin, an Oklahoma state prisoner appearing pro
se, seeks a certificate of appealability under 28 U.S.C. § 2253 in order to
challenge the district court’s dismissal of his habeas petition filed pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 2254. We deny Mr. Martin’s request for a certificate of appealability
and dismiss his appeal.
A jury convicted Mr. Martin of “larceny of an automobile after former
conviction of two or more felonies.” He received a sentence of thirty-eight years
imprisonment. Mr. Martin perfected a timely direct appeal to the Oklahoma Court
of Criminal Appeals, and that court affirmed the judgment and sentence. Mr.
Martin then unsuccessfully sought post-conviction relief in Oklahoma state
courts.
Thereafter, Mr. Martin filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28
U.S.C. § 2254 in the federal district court raising essentially three claims: (1) the
trial court used erroneous and improper jury instructions, which denied his right
to an impartial jury, a fair trial, due process, equal protection, and the right to
remain silent; (2) his conviction resulted from use of evidence obtained through
an unlawful arrest; and (3) the court violated his privilege against self-
incrimination by admitting into evidence his statements to the police prior to
-2-
receiving a Miranda warning. Mr. Martin did not raise the first two issues in his
direct appeal to the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals. He claims he failed to
raise those issues because of his counsel’s ineffective assistance. Alternatively,
he asserts the district court’s failure to consider those issues resulted in a
fundamental miscarriage of justice.
The background facts of Mr. Martin’s case are set out and fully addressed
by the district court in a thorough thirteen-page Order filed May 7, 1998. After
careful analysis, the district court found Mr. Martin’s first two claims
procedurally barred because he failed to raise them on direct appeal, or show
“cause” why they could not be raised on direct appeal. The district court
reviewed Mr. Martin’s multiple claims of ineffective assistance of counsel, and
determined they each failed to satisfy either the performance or prejudice prong
of Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687 & 694 (1984). As a result, the
court concluded Mr. Martin’s claims of ineffective assistance of counsel did not
satisfy the “cause” requirement to show why he failed to raise the first two issues
on direct appeal. The district court also found Mr. Martin never raised a claim of
actual innocence. Thus, the district court determined his assertion of fundamental
miscarriage of justice must also fail.
-3-
Lastly, the district court considered Mr. Martin’s claim that the trial court
improperly admitted his statements to the police prior to issuance of a Miranda
warning. After reviewing the record, the district court concluded the “state
court’s resolution of this issue did not involve an unreasonable application of
Federal law nor was it based on an unreasonable determination of the facts,” and
found “nothing constitutionally infirm in the trial court’s decision to admit this
evidence.” The district court denied Mr. Martin’s request for a certificate of
appealability.
On appeal, Mr. Martin raises essentially the same arguments raised in his
petition before the district court. We have thoroughly reviewed Mr. Martin’s
application for a certificate of appealability, his brief and other pleadings, the
district court’s order, and the entire record on appeal. For substantially the same
reasons set forth by the district court in its Order filed May 7, 1998, we conclude
Mr. Martin fails to make a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional
right as required by 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). 1 We adopt the district court’s
1
A defendant may appeal the denial of a habeas corpus petition only if “a circuit
justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A). “A
certificate of appealability may issue ... only if the applicant has made a substantial
showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). See United
States v. Simmonds, 111 F.3d 737, 746 (10th Cir. 1997).
-4-
reasoning in its Order and attach it hereto.
Accordingly, we deny Mr. Martin’s request for a certificate of appealability
and DISMISS the appeal.
Entered by the Court:
WADE BRORBY
United States Circuit Judge
-5-
Attachment not available electronically.